WHO did they spy on?

Yes I know they can't tell you and me but they can tell our representatives--in hearings behind closed doors. That should remove the fears of infringing upon our "security."

Of course anybody calling for hearings would become part of a predictable shout down by BushCo--they'd be accused of being anti-American and endangering public safety.

The real reason for refusing to reveal their targets, though, would be that they spied on people like Billary--and other political rivals.

Who do you think they spied, er um--"eavesdropped" (neocon description of spying)--on?

if that will go the way of the Abu Ghraib pics? :eyes:

that have been deemed "threats" and have been infiltrated and watched by the FBI. That would include groups of Quakers and anti-war groups planning peace marches. Creepy.

It would certainly be interesting to see the list of 500.

Slowly, the insane picture is starting to come together, and I have good money that it was a lot more people than what you expect. All the paranoid people around 2002, that many people don't go crazy at once. I saw my muslim neighbor taken away, but the surveillience I'm talking about isn't that, its wierd groups of people, like pagan/occult community, peace protesters, etc.

Let's not drag this out with questions that don't need to be answered right now. They spied, they spied, they spied. Do we believe in freedom and our Constitution, or not. Focus.

Remember the tookiemania and marshall law episodes of late?

You're more likely to get a herd of donkeys to voluntarily jump into a meat grinder so we can continue to get Big Macs at low low prices...

actions be contested, the question of who they spied on will be important. There's nothing to "drag" out at this point. There are only discussions--which you can choose to participate in--or not.

Who they spied on is totally irrelevant, completely misses the point. Unless you're suggesting that illegal searches and spying are acceptable in any instance. Debating when illegal searches are necessary for the "good of the country" is an avenue we don't want to go down. It's a distraction.

However, reality is, many in this country could care less if the president spied on Arab-Americans. Just as many didn't care when the Japanese-Americans were interned.

They have bought in to the Bushco/MSM fear-a-thon, with absolutely no thought in their collective heads.

However, if they see that people who have nothing to do with Islam and/or the Middle East have been targeted, then they just might realize the seriousness of this crime.

I know it sounds cynical, but that is what I think it will take to keep this story alive. If Bush only spied on brown non judeo-christian people, middle America would yawn and turn the channel.

If we find out that it WAS all Islam or ME targets, then there goes the case you're trying to make. What's worse, we'll be called traitors for coddling the terrorists. Why go there? They're spying on Americans, don't complicate it.

MHO, it is important to have the full picture, and that includes the who as well as the what, where and why.

I've already heard some Bushbots try to make a case that these might not be Americans they were spying on. We need to know what they are hiding.

After all they are allowed to tap and request premission within 72 hours after the fact, why didn't they? They are hiding something, and I for one would like to know what.

Who are they spying on?

The Democratic party? :-) Michael Moore?

Recommended and Kicked

:Kick:

I've become jaded to the point of not believing there's any real "terrorist threat" anyway. So the question really is - who are they spying on, and why?? If the 500 number estimate is right, that's a small number of people, and I assume a very specific group. If you were just sort of randomly sampling American conversations and activities, in hopes of catching a terrorist here or there, you'd really want to be listening in on a lot more than 500.

I'm not completely over the fence on 9/11 yet - thinking that was all planned out - but there haven't been any even serious attempts at attacks in this country since then. All we hear is stories like some guy was overheard talking about wanting to blow up this or that...not at all credible, and nothing that has seemed like any real threat. Now Iraq - they have a problem with terrorism! Bombs going off in the streets almost every day. I can see going to extreme and questionable efforts to control that.

Real terrorist groups - aren't we spying on them already anyway? What's the CIA for??? What's the point of this "new" tactic?

I don't get it - all I can come up with is that it's a megalomaniacal power grab (I will do this because I want to and who's gonna stop me), or that they're spying on rival political figures. I can't think of anything else that really makes sense. Sorry - spying on possible terrorists doesn't make sense to me!!! Terrorists are now equal to the Boogie Man and trolls under the bridge to me now. Too many "cried wolf" moments in the past few years. Whether I'm right, or crazy, that's the impression I'm left with.

showed that political group that had been infiltrated by a spy? That's the kind of thing the CIA has always done--although that was shocking. But wiretaps? Why are they necessary--in BushCo's eyes? Only for their on selfish purposes IMHO.

He wanted to gather information that:

1) Nobody could prove he was looking for
2) Nobody could prove he had
3) Nobody could force him to disclose
4) Nobody could accuse him of not acting upon (because they couldn't prove he had it)

My guess is the "Coalition of the Willing" is actually more like "The Coalition of the Blackmailed."

Some people say.

the blackmailed." Definitely. I think some of their own people--like Powell, will never come clean for the same reason.

That's thousands of people with "known Al-Quaeda connections" who for some reason have not been arrested or charged with anything, yet whose "known connections" were so flimsy they wouldn't have been able to get a legal wiretap warrant-- which have been approved 100% of the time.

Apparently, even though 100% of Bush's "legal" wiretap requests were approved, being a "known Al-Queda" connection was such a flimsy basis for a wiretap that Bush was afraid a warrant might not be approved.

And the super-secret FISA courts weren't secretive enough. He had to pursue double-super-secret wiretaps.

Do you want my guesses what was really going on?

Well, I'll tell you anyway:

1) Corporate espionage for his patrons at Halliburton and other companies.

2) Personal enemies lists and opposition research on people like Valerie Plame and peace activists.

3) "Corporo-sensitive" spying-- investigating people with close ties to his corporate interests. If The NSA uncovered something that might be embarrassing to (for example) Halliburton or The Saudi Royal Family, then the research could be "lost" since it "never happened."

4) Blackmail.

5) A desperate search for information to justify and cover-up the pre-war fixing of intelligence.

Some people say.

Why wouldn't they? :shrug:

inalienable...adj. 1: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another

you can be sure everyine here has been eavesdropped on.